JustAnEngineer wrote:Closed-loop water cooling doesn't have to be terribly expensive, also thanks to the value-conscious folks at CoolerMaster.
The giant air coolers probably provide better cooling, but there are some case configurations where mounting a radiator at the back really opens up the clutter above the CPU socket.
flip-mode wrote:Dunno, cost of cooler shouldn't mean much since, IMO, you should be running a Hyper 212 Evo regardless.
jihadjoe wrote:Also, dust! Blowing some compressed air through a rad is far easier than having to dismount your ginormous tower cooler to clean it.
vargis14 wrote:since I smoke and have 2 danes it can get pretty dang dirty with the sticky dust from the smoke.
Bensam123 wrote:Yeah Ati and none of those games really require more then that.
sschaem wrote:I recall reading people setting their FX at 1.4+ volt and ~5GHZ... I just cant imagine the heat this generate!
JohnC wrote:Amusing how people are willing to inconvenience themselves in different ways just to save a few $0.02 Oh well, whatever tickles your fancy...
clone wrote:The benchmarks linked in this thread show more than 15% benefit, and the cost is less than $500.You can add 30% more perf for $150 (AMD) and an extra 15% for $500 (Intel).
clone wrote:2nd part: Flip Mode their is a huge divide between your recommendation and your choices given your X4 955 with DDR2 while a solid setup was built/upgraded during the years Core 2 & i7 along with DDR 3 were mainstream.
why is it when it's not your money you are so adamant?
just brew it! wrote:flip-mode wrote:Dunno, cost of cooler shouldn't mean much since, IMO, you should be running a Hyper 212 Evo regardless.
The only gotcha with the 212 Evo is that it requires a custom motherboard backing plate, so it is a bit inconvenient for retrofits. TX3 can use the existing AMD standard heatsink mounting frame so you can swap it in without removing the motherboard from the case; but I would not recommend the TX3 if you plan to OC.jihadjoe wrote:Also, dust! Blowing some compressed air through a rad is far easier than having to dismount your ginormous tower cooler to clean it.
You can blow compressed air through a tower cooler too.
sschaem wrote:For what its worth,
So far I see that this system uses 33.5W per module at 3.5ghz/1.112v, but a whopping 53.5W (per module) at 4.2ghz/1.265v
Just an old point of reference: my Q6600 uses about 31.5W per 'core' at 3.2ghz / 1.288v
I dont have enough data point to draw an efficiency curve, but that 20% speed boost cost 60% more power to achieve.
End User wrote:Bensam123 wrote:We may end up in a scenario where a 8350 is equal or better then a 4770k in games if they become better multithreaded (like BF3).
A 8350 can't even beat a i5-760 in BF3:
travbrad wrote:Bensam123 wrote:Yeah Ati and none of those games really require more then that.
Planetside 2 does unfortunately. It only uses 2 cores and I am bottlenecked by my CPU with an i5-2500K @ 4.5ghz. There is basically no CPU in existence that can run it completely smoothly, even when overclocked.
Even World of Tanks runs noticeably better on my 2500K@4.5ghz than it does on my E8400@4.0ghz, despite only using 1 core. Never underestimate how poorly optimized a lot of games are
clone wrote:Flip Mode wrote:I agree 100% until you claim Intel is the only route to go, I'm not saying Intel is a bad route but where is this "compromise" that's to be had by saving $500? ($450 JustAnEngineer )The x4 955 measured up well at the time I purchased, and wasn't as much the compromise that the fx chips are today.the 955 is doing everything I need at the moment.
if what you have is fine for everything out today, why is their a singular need for more performance at any price? (especially when software demands are growing at a glacial pace and the future is multithreaded to be handled by more and simpler cores)
clone wrote:JustAnEngineer wrote:Do you personally choose & recommend the cheapest motherboards you can find from any company or do you buy trusted parts along with something with the right features? Also, add in taxes and shipping (+ coin from replaced CPU sale if he goes FX 8320) and $500 is fine. If you'd like I'll say $450. Where is this "compromise" that's to be had by saving $500? ($450 JustAnEngineer )The cost is less than $500.
Bensam123 wrote:I've played 64 person metros WHILE STREAMING and get 60-100fps, usually around 75ish.
clone wrote:spend $145 to get 30% (23% according to PC world) more performance or $350 [fixed] to get another 15%.
flip-mode wrote:Secondly, going from AMD to Intel means you get better SATA performance, better USB performance.
flip-mode wrote:is just as "exciting" - if not more exciting
clone wrote:notably boring
clone wrote:their is room
clone wrote:How is it not inconsistent to say "get the cheap cpu" and also "don't get a cheap mobo"?what?.... buying the cheapest toilet available is not and has never been an exciting proposition, especially when it's sole purpose is to replace one that works fine already. to your credit those ""'s were wisely used in that comment.
See, given the past history between you and me, this type of comment will go nowhere but bad places - let's not make this personal and let's not try to disqualify one another from the conversation. In spite of what I think is an undignified remark, I must say that I never have real world experience with a mobo until I buy one, but I definitely can read specs and reviews and form my own opinions on any number of motherboards - and that's something I commonly do every time I get ready to buy a motherboard.2nd part Flip Mode you have no real world experience with the motherboards discussed to justify that comment at all.... the only "exciting" upgrade is the one that hasn't been discussed which is to go from a platter drive to an SSD.
Opinions vary; mobos are pretty interesting things, IMO.replacing mobo's, cpu's and ram has been notably boring for the past 5 years because software has fallen so far behind.